Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens

Canon has taken the wraps off its new 50-1000mm CN20x 50 IAS H E1/P1 lens, expanding its cine-servo offerings with what the maker says is the first-ever lens boasting a combined 20x magnification, integrated 1.5x extender, and a removable servo drive. The lens is targeted specifically at nature and sports television productions.

The CN20x 50 IAS H E1/P1's servo drive has been updated over previous offerings, with the removability making it more practical for broadcasting purposes than other cine lenses. The new model supports 12-pin serial communication, and is designed for use with Super35mm cameras. The lens is relatively portable with a weight of approximately 14.5lbs, as well.

Canon hails its latest model as an excellent choice for nature and sports production environments, not the least of which being due to the lens' flexibility and so-called "nimble hardware". The ultra-telephoto zoom allows for distant footage to be captured, and is joined be the convenience of single-lens shooting.

The lens' native focal range is 50 - 1000mm, which is taken to 75 - 1500mm when the built-in extender is employed. The CN20x 50 IAS H E1/P1 has a 180-degree focus ring rotation and simple focusing operations to meet the demands of fast-changing environments, says Canon, and will be available in both PL-mount and EF-mount variations.

The new Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 Ultra-telephoto Zoom lens is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2015 for a suggested list price of $78,000. For more information visit Canon's professional cinema lens website

Comments

Let me put the specification and price of lens in the context of its target user.Canon built the lens for use by professional cameramen and DPs and TV sports production.Some cameras that will go on the end of it cost more than the lens.The lens will have a usefull life of at least 15 years.The lens at $800-$900 per day (3 day week)It out performs the Canon 150-600 century precision optic lens ( a reworked canon 150-600)The lens is relatively light, it doesnt need a massive tripod and head.Its speed is a compromise on weight.A set of Summilux primes is $300k, a Optimo 24-290 is $90k. A HD sports zoom lens is well over $100k.The 20x50 has already been used in stabilised aerial gimbals which themselves cost $450k.So the $$ cost is in line with cinema industry norms,

A faster lens would be a compromise on mtf and heavier which rules out its use in gimbals and for wildlife.

This lens is c-r-a-p-o-l-a. To shoot video with a T8.9 iris lens? Only the mind (?) of Canon-San could cook up something this incredibly dumb.

The 20x zoom range is not all that much to right home about, either. Back in 1958, we already had a French made 35mm movie zoom lens that was 10x and then 12x zoom range capable, and these were not T9 lenses but more along T2.7. Huge difference.

Why is Canon hell-bent in making itself look more and more ridiculous, I wonder?

Yeah -- $7,800 would have been the price at which they would have surely sold a number of copes. But at $78,00 a pop -- it is surely going straight into some well heeled museum as part of their permanent exhibit of 21th Century follies excesses.

Yeah -- $7,800 would have been the price at which they would have surely sold a number of copes. But at $78,00 a pop -- it is surely going straight into some well heeled museum as part of their permanent exhibit of 21th Century follies excesses.

T5.0-8.9 doesn't sound impressive, at least in the lower range (and I doubt it's gonna be T/5 until 999mm). How do cine people deal with bad speed in low light? I get it that with 1080p it's not such an issue compared to 36 MPx prints, but with 4k I guess things start getting noisy.

You're typically dealing with longer exposures while shooting cinema/video. Unless you're shooting extreme high frame rate material, it actually looks more natural to have some of motion blur in your footage (otherwise, it can appear to have a bit of a "stutter" to it). It's also very impractical to track focus at wide apertures on extremely long lenses. At 800mm, I'm usually at f/11 for tracking birds in flight and f/8 for larger/slower animals.

This lens is c-r-a-p-o-l-a. To shoot video with a T8.9 iris lens? Only the mind (?) of Canon-San could cook up something this incredibly dumb.

The 20x zoom range is not all that much to right home about, either. Back in 1958, we already had a French made 35mm movie zoom lens that was 10x and then 12x zoom range capable, and these were not T9 lenses but more along T2.7. Huge difference.

Why is Canon hell-bent in making itself look more and more ridiculous, I wonder?

Unlikely many individuals will buy this lens. Film productions rent everything so it may become a staple of rental houses. If their was a long term need such as NFL films, MLB would be potential clients.

that is a lot of comments about a thing that no one here will ever lay hands on but everybody has an opinion about it just because of the price. It's really amazing, just write 35000$ or 128000$ on something and suddenly everybody has something to say :) Why is that?

If all camera manufacturers would join to create common lenses standard to fit all camera brands, I would consider buy expensive lenses, well not that expensive but expensive and big collection of them.

Having a positive locking mount is pretty crucial to cinema work for preventing image shift and changes in back focus, but the system is too bulky for a compact/mirrorless/DSLR system. Having lenses with interchangeable mounts (a la Sigma's Global Vision line, Zeiss CP2s, Schneider Xenons or the older Adaptall system) seems like the way to go.

What a shame DP Review wasn't able to post a video with this lens zooming from 50 to 1000mm. One of Clint Eastwood's early western movies has a great zoom shot of a landscape, zooming in we see a rider on a horse who is then shot. To get this all in one take is cinematic. For sports, as the action moves closer to the photographer they can still shoot. I'd love to play with this lens on the streets of NYC. 78K -- yeah that's a lot of money -- but the broadcast equipment is a lot too. If your company buys one of these lenses, ask for a raise!

And if after 4 or 5 years Canon no longer stocks parts or services it, and gives you a piece of paper with a phone number to their loyalty program so you can buy a refurbished model prior to their current latest model -- well that's a different conversation. :)

It should be okay, the m43 Speedbooster doesn't use the whole image circle... The SpeedBooster is a 1.42x crop, vs. 2x normally for m43 (so normally a 50mm lens = 100mm equiv on m43 but with SB = 71mm) a Super35 sensor is a 1.4-1.5 crop vs. FF so I think you're probably okay!

Umm... this is for Cinema VIDEOGRPAPHERs.. using $100,000 crane style mounts for taking video... the weight is a total non issue and being able to control long zooms all in one take without splicing and capture multiple scenes is a huge consideration.

This is aimed at sports and wildlife cinematography, where people use comparably heavy lenses all the time. Being able to zoom in and out can get you some quick closeups and wide shots that you'd miss if you had to change lenses or pop on a teleconverter, which is very handy for editing.

"new $78K lens" - loudly says everyone "not for you" even before clicking the link. Canon should have released this lens two week back as "impossible".

It is canon's business to price and sell whatever.. we should not intervene in their business. Moreover, it is clear that Nikon is not offering anything close to Canon like this or 100-400mm or 200-400mm 1.4x . I haven't seen them doing any improvement in their lens side.

I and thousand others here will be happier if Canon gives a sharper,faster version of already good 100-400 L , rather than these kind of professional only lens. I think that will be more profitable for Canon.

Except that the average person will have one 100-400 or 200-400. TV broadcasters will most definately have more than 10 of these. Think of a typical pro sports game, and all the camera angles they have. That x $78,000.... Canon goes where the money is.

I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".

I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.

Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.

"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.

Not referring to FF is all fine and well but then the starting point should not be the focal length (which on its own doesn't say anything about the AOV) and f-stop (which equally on its own doesn't say anything about the low light performance).

The starting point should be AOV (expressed in degrees or percentage as you suggest) complemented with the aperture size (or more precisely entrance pupil) with the addition of the size of the image circle (or the sensor format as a proxy for it).

> "Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame."

This is cine lens, right? Cine lenses (and that's one of the reasons they cost like humble rural property, or two, or three, each) usually show nothing of what bothers forum inhabitants: coma, fringing, distortion, etc. Any of them, from UWA to supertele. Guess why? Because the spectator must NOT see anything changing but the field of view. The only feasible way to produce the lens of such quality is make its circle of coverage much wider than declared format. For instance, Kern-Paillard 75/2, originally for 16mm, Bolex and C-mount, covers Super35 and APS-C like native... from photographer's point of view.

The same quality is shared by TS (PC) lenses: while having the flange distance of their 35mm system, they easily cover 6x6 frame, and that's why they allow tilt and shift.

So I guess this engineering marvel, while not impressing photographers with aperture range, may show great results as a Double35 stills lens. You just wait for someone to put it on EOS-1Dc and share the pictures.

@dark goob. While I understand your frustration with the notations like crop factors, and agree in principal to the idea that every format is "full frame". However the problem is that the solution that you are suggesting and other similar solutions are likely to cause more confusion and can be even more cumbersome. First, most of us have developed a fairly good understanding of what various focal lengths mean for the 35mm format. i.e. how wide is 28mm and how long is 100mm etc. So it is very convenient and straight forward to convert everything to that same frame of reference. It is easy, convenient and works very well, as long as we don't get hung up on the terminology. Don't wanna call it crop factor? sure call it something else.......

.....Now if we start using a different system like your range factor or AOV, then we have to develop the intuition all over again about what those mean. I don't really know how wide is a 50 degree AOV. The other issue which can potentially make such a scheme a big mess is that if you label a lens with say your Range Factor then you have to assume a specific sensor size for that and that's not right. You can mount the same lens on cameras with different sensor sizes and then the range factor will no longer hold. For example a Canon 24-70mm lens can be mounted on a 5DIII, 1D2 or 7D, giving different AOV in each case. For Nikon side there are also folks using their lenses on 1-inch sensor Nikon 1 cameras. I think the lenses should be labelled based on their FL's as that's inherent to them. Any labeling which assumes a specific sensor size is bound to cause even more chaos.

@random78With all due respect, I am opposed to the idea that it is a bad thing to develop new ideas, new intuitions. I believe that is the benefit of being human: we are allowed to be creative, and we have the capacity to learn and to think.

Setting things up in a way that makes logical sense and is mathematically useful follows the spirit of photography. For example the F-stop numbers and flash guide numbers were developed to make it easy to determine the distance-to-subject necessary for a proper exposure using simple division, as opposed to having to perform algebra or trigonometry. The disadvantage to using degrees (or hey, radians!) would be that almost no one can perform arctan in their head. Sorry, but you can't.

The advantage to the Range Factor idea is that, like guide numbers and f-stops, it deals with distance-to-subject and only depends on simple multiplication.

@random78 In that respect I have no sympathy for people who say "we have to develop the intuition all over again about what those mean" because first of all, I highly question the idea that anyone actually really does know "what those mean."

But what about 247mm? 12.9mm? 21.4mm? 43mm? There are an awful lot of weird ones nowadays if you actually do the conversions and don't round it up to the nearest decimal (which is especially dumb to do at the wide end). I challenge anyone who thinks they really know what these 135-equivalent focal lengths "mean", to honestly sit down and try to write down how far away you would have to be from a 6' tall person to get their whole body in the frame, top-to-bottom, with focal lengths of every whole number from 1 to 50.

Now I'm sure you don't know how to do that. Nobody does. So people will say, "yeah but I have a *feel* for those numbers."

Well, I don't think that having a foggy, milky "intuition" or "feel" for something really counts for much. Sounds like what new age people say about the spiritual power of crystals.

What that "intuition" actually is, is just a feeling of familiarity and recognition, and a vague idea that only approximately corresponds with reality. It's not actually useful for anything specific. It has no degree of precision. Very complex math involving trigonometric equations and squares is necessary to determine anything useful from it about the angle of view or the extent of the captured frame at a given distance.

Further because camera manufacturers report the *actual* aperture but only the *equivalent* focal length, then it leads to even more confusion for consumers. This is bad.

The first step is moving away from 35mm-equivalent focal lengths and only using Range Factor (or something similar), while also ditching the idea of calling 35mm "full-frame" since "full" is a purely relative term.

@dark goob. You need to ease up man. Unfortunately people often think of arguments as black & white where one view is either completely correct or completely incorrect. I am not disagreeing to your basic ideas. I have in the past myself thought about similar schemes. However when I thought about my own schemes I realized two issues which are what I presented to you. First is the one which you did not address --- something like your range factor is not a property of the lens itself and depends on the sensor size used. What do you do when a lens can be mounted on multiple sensor sizes? How do you define the range factor of the lens in that case? Manufacturers today label lenses with actual focal length which is unambiguous. Second, people don't adopt a new system just because someone on a forum doesn't like the existing system. They do it only when the existing system has some limitations. When the existing system is working well then there is no incentive to switch to something else.

I suppose I should have been more specific.... Their lenses are fantastic - it's just a shame you have to buy a Sony camera to get the best out of them.... Or rather - I wish they'd hurry up and release a high-res camera I can dream about. My old dream camera was the 1DsMkII, now I have one and wish there was a new body to aspire to own - I already have the lenses for it.....

But not impossible to rent, as there is so much video and photography equipment that professional videographers and photographers can't afford that is rented on a as needed basis.

I do find the lens very technically interesting though... even if the price is $ouch. I'm glad DPreview mentioned it because while it doesn't fit my needs, there are people who read this forum who are into video *and* photography who can easily afford the lens.

At what weekly rent? I imagine the user would have to post a substantial security deposit and fret about breaking the thing. It probably requires more than a week to figure out how best to use the thing. Not for the occasional BIF enthusiast.

If you're used to pricing lenses for still photography, yes... it seems insanely expensive. In the context of high end cine lenses the price isn't all that outlandish. For comparison, check into what similar Fujinon or Cooke lenses cost. Different tools for different uses.

Exactly. It might cost $250 per hour to rent a small high performance piston engine Cessna; so how much to rent/lease a Boeing 777? I don't know, but the fact is that a lot of people lease expensive things to get business done.

What's considered "expensive" or not is relative. Tell some guy on the street that you paid $5500 for a telephoto lens and they're likely to think you're absolutely crazy. Tell that to a wildlife shooter and they wouldn't think anything of it because it's a LOT cheaper than shelling money out for a 500, 600, 800 or 200-400mm lens.

Facepalm. This is a cine lens. For CINEMA. The people who are going to rent a lens like this shoot with $70k digital cinema cameras like the Arri Alexa or the Red Epic Dragon. The costs for productions that involve this kind of equipment, and the support team and infrastructure required, are much, much greater. See the comment below about how a similar lens was used in Hannah Montana 3D. $30m budget with perhaps half of that EXTRA spent on marketing.

This isn't a lens for some amateur who wants to shoot BIF any more than a 1Dx is a suitable camera for a five year old, or the aforementioned Bugatti is a good 'first car for Jimmy'.

Take your palm away from your face. I know it's a cine lens. I am also familiar with Red. My point was that whether or not something is expensive is relative ($5500 isn't viewed as horribly expensive to a professional wildlife or street/documentary photographer as it is to the average person who thinks a $400 point/shoot is "expensive")

While there aren't too many teen agers getting $2.5mil Bugattis for their birthdays or for getting in to Yale; there are *many* teens who have received $300,000 Ferraris for their first car (and $70k earrings for their first real jewelry) and the number of teens receiving $100,000 Porsches , BMWs and Mercedes as "first cars" makes the point. What's suitable is most often decided with money and relativity...

@Teila Day - my comment wasn't directed at you, but at the multitudes of commenters here who cannot even seem to read beyond 'Canon zoom lens costs $78k' and immediately question its value or use. I agree with you about the relativities of money entirely. Sorry if you thought I was addressing you.

We have this lens mounted to an Arri dove tail plate with steel rods and a center lens mount support. It works well on a Sachler video 18 head and balances nicely (C300, Vmount battery, focus and zoom control plus plate).

Why lol? The likely uses for this lens will involve manually focusing on an unpredictable moving subject. If you could keep focus at the DOF that would be afforded by a wider aperture you would have a great career as an AC.

cine lenses don't get used at ridiculous f-stops. They have tight control over lighting and DOF is important in many shots. There is very little demand for large apertures at telephoto. f2.8 at 1000mm would have a depth of field rendering the lens useless for focusing within several hundred feet.

Many (hopefully) sarcastic comments here about how this lens would be a poor choice for an APS-C photo camera like 'it's not f/2.8', but I truly don't understand. Not being a video shooter, I wonder why this lens is so desirable for video. That's not a value judgment by the way: I know next to nothing about video and I'm honestly hoping to learn something here. Is it the incredible range? I would think videographers would use multiple lenses (as in the 7D mk video). What would be a typical use for a huge zoom like this one? And while I understand enough physics to see why they don't make a 50-1000 zoom 2.8, I wonder why this slow (...compared to photo zooms) aperture is apparently unproblematic for video. Can anyone explain?

Not a video shooter myslef, I believe there is not enough time to change lenses when shooting continuous action (sport, animals). making it a F2.8 would HUGELY affect the size of the thing (and price, too). It's probably not possible at all. The slow aperture is not problematic, considering shutter speeds used fo video and sensitivity of modern sensors (you only need 2-8Mpx for video...)

I think these obscene zoom ranges are normal for broadcast cameras. Think of golf coverage on TV - the camera zooms all the way from a distant golfer walking up the fairway, all the way back to a wide angle view of the green. They do the same on coverage of the Wimbledon tennis championship, zooming all the way from a court-wide view to a (slightly wobbly) *close-up* of the London skyline - miles away! I think the slow aperture might not be a problem since for video they never need to use a fast shutter speed.

Remember the day when multiple lens of different focal lengths were mounted on a rotating wheel - yes in live broadcast there is no time to stop and change lens - but then any decent live broadcast would have multiple cameras at different locations and angles and the broadcasting controller will have the luxury of calling any shots at any angle closer-up or far away

Video shooters don't use PD-AF (at least until recently) and thus are not bound by the f/5.6 (or f/6.3 or f/8 for some cameras and some AF points) limit. And the on-sensor PD-AF likely can be more liberal with minimum f-stop limits because they have so many pixels to choose from that they can implement PD-AF 'sensors' with different f-stop limits.

Thanks a lot everyone; very informative replies. I immediately jumped to thinking about filmmaking, where the need to change lenses quickly is probably less great since you're planning the scene. I had not considered (live) TV broadcasting or possibly documentary filmmaking, which I can imagine indeed had different requirements in terms of zoom range. Neither had I thought of the shutter speed, (relatively...) low required resolution, or phase detection AF arguments mentioned above. I guess every day's a school day!

And @mais51: yes I do remember those! Sometimes I wish I had something like that for my DSLR primes :-)

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.